"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Breaking is down, what it says is the right of the people to own weapons shall not be interfered with by the government. The right to keep and bear arms is considered an unenumerated right governed by the terms of the Ninth Amendment. One possible reason for this right not to be interfered with is the need to maintain a well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.

This was the reality of the United States of America in the 1780s. We had just gone through a brutal war where, a fledgling Continental army aided be an unregulated militia of armed civilians (and a not so insignificant French Naval armada and Army) had beaten back the British empire and forced King George and Parliament to grant the Colonies their independence. This would not have been possible without a populous or armed civilians working in conjunction with regulated military forces, to overthrow the King of England. Bearing this in mind, plus the memories of the King's forces attempting to disarm the colonists to crush the growing rebellion, the Second Amendment was added into our current Constitution to safeguard us.

Fast forward to 2012.

America looks nothing like it did in 1782. We are an industrialized, urban society in a mature Information Age. The population has largely transitioned all internal security over to government administered peacekeepers, ie state and local police, investigation bureaus, etc. The federal government maintains a large, regulated, army, navy and Air Force to guard us from outside attacks by hostile forces. The voting public seems content with this arrangement and there is very little interest in organizing private militias, save only private security firms, e.g. Armor Holdings, Blackwater, etc. as well as a few intrepid - and borderline crazy - groups like the Michigan Militia. The only real vestige of a Federal mandate for a militia (and still is current US law) is the US Militia Act of 1791, which states that all US males, aged 17 to 45, are members of the US militia.

So the question becomes is the need for a well regulated militia still a practical justification for the people to keep and bear arms?

It's not like it cannot be done. Take Switzerland. It's a modern European country with social policies very similar to its western european neighbors.

Except guns.

Here, every Swiss male, aged 18 to 49 and in good standing, is a member of the Swiss Militia and is required to train with their local chapters on a regular basis. They are also issued a SiG 550 select fire Assault Rifle by the government of Switzerland. They are instructed to keep this rifle, along with a sealed tin of 500 rounds of 5.56 x 45mm ammunition, in their house. This isn't done for trivial reasons - there is a very deadly serious purpose to this. If the nation is invaded, these people will be expected to use these guns to drive out the invaders. Training for war is part of every Swiss male's life, though it creeps into friendly competition (marksmanship, and not soccer, is the most important sport to the Swiss). And it's not uncommon to find an assault rifle, locked and loaded, in a closet inside a Swiss household, easily within reach of children. You may also see a civilian with a machine gun slung over his shoulder smiling and buying a dozen eggs and a quart of milk at a local supermarket, on his way home from a militia meeting.

But for all the guns, the Swiss don't experience the record violent crime with guns like the United States does. The murder rates with guns are very similar to those found in France or Germany.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to pattern the US Militia after the Swiss Militia, but the idea waned and faded in the United States.

So has the Second Amendment become a defunct, vestigial boundary for the Constitution. If we aren't serious about maintaining a militia using civilians to serve a definitive purpose for the integral security of the United States, does this Amendment need to be revised drastically or eliminated altogether with a 28th Amendment, just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 19th Amendment?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

(22-12-2012 07:40 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Breaking is down, what it says is the right of the people to own weapons shall not be interfered with by the government. The right to keep and bear arms is considered an unenumerated right governed by the terms of the Ninth Amendment. One possible reason for this right not to be interfered with is the need to maintain a well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.

This was the reality of the United States of America in the 1780s. We had just gone through a brutal war where, a fledgling Continental army aided be an unregulated militia of armed civilians (and a not so insignificant French Naval armada and Army) had beaten back the British empire and forced King George and Parliament to grant the Colonies their independence. This would not have been possible without a populous or armed civilians working in conjunction with regulated military forces, to overthrow the King of England. Bearing this in mind, plus the memories of the King's forces attempting to disarm the colonists to crush the growing rebellion, the Second Amendment was added into our current Constitution to safeguard us.

Fast forward to 2012.

America looks nothing like it did in 1782. We are an industrialized, urban society in a mature Information Age. The population has largely transitioned all internal security over to government administered peacekeepers, ie state and local police, investigation bureaus, etc. The federal government maintains a large, regulated, army, navy and Air Force to guard us from outside attacks by hostile forces. The voting public seems content with this arrangement and there is very little interest in organizing private militias, save only private security firms, e.g. Armor Holdings, Blackwater, etc. as well as a few intrepid - and borderline crazy - groups like the Michigan Militia. The only real vestige of a Federal mandate for a militia (and still is current US law) is the US Militia Act of 1791, which states that all US males, aged 17 to 45, are members of the US militia.

So the question becomes is the need for a well regulated militia still a practical justification for the people to keep and bear arms?

It's not like it cannot be done. Take Switzerland. It's a modern European country with social policies very similar to its western european neighbors.

Except guns.

Here, every Swiss male, aged 18 to 49 and in good standing, is a member of the Swiss Militia and is required to train with their local chapters on a regular basis. They are also issued a SiG 550 select fire Assault Rifle by the government of Switzerland. They are instructed to keep this rifle, along with a sealed tin of 500 rounds of 5.56 x 45mm ammunition, in their house. This isn't done for trivial reasons - there is a very deadly serious purpose to this. If the nation is invaded, these people will be expected to use these guns to drive out the invaders. Training for war is part of every Swiss male's life, though it creeps into friendly competition (marksmanship, and not soccer, is the most important sport to the Swiss). And it's not uncommon to find an assault rifle, locked and loaded, in a closet inside a Swiss household, easily within reach of children. You may also see a civilian with a machine gun slung over his shoulder smiling and buying a dozen eggs and a quart of milk at a local supermarket, on his way home from a militia meeting.

But for all the guns, the Swiss don't experience the record violent crime with guns like the United States does. The murder rates with guns are very similar to those found in France or Germany.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to pattern the US Militia after the Swiss Militia, but the idea waned and faded in the United States.

So has the Second Amendment become a defunct, vestigial boundary for the Constitution. If we aren't serious about maintaining a militia using civilians to serve a definitive purpose for the integral security of the United States, does this Amendment need to be revised drastically or eliminated altogether with a 28th Amendment, just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 19th Amendment?

This is a very good argument. Many people believe we should get back to the original model.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(22-12-2012 08:01 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: Do you really think the average citizen will be able to withstand a professional army, with modern destructive capabilities, that can already obliterate the country's primary federal defenses?

Look at every recent or on-going armed conflict in the world. It's not necessarily about winning; it's about making it too costly to try.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(22-12-2012 08:01 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: Do you really think the average citizen will be able to withstand a professional army, with modern destructive capabilities, that can already obliterate the country's primary federal defenses?

Look at every recent or on-going armed conflict in the world. It's not necessarily about winning; it's about making it too costly to try.

Your question is moot since we see it happen on the news most every night.

We see terrorist forces trained by military units in an effort to overthrow dangerous leaders turning against us or their nations? Yes, we see that all the time. We do not see untrained U.S citizens attempting to fight a fully-armed military.

(22-12-2012 08:16 PM)Erxomai Wrote: Your question is moot since we see it happen on the news most every night.

We see terrorist forces trained by military units in an effort to overthrow dangerous leaders turning against us or their nations? Yes, we see that all the time. We do not see untrained U.S citizens attempting to fight a fully-armed military.

There are many self-styled militias in the U.S. and many ex-military citizens. Their mindset is that they will be able to fight a guerrilla war and that elements of the military will join them.

I am not arguing my point of view here - I am trying to explain what is going on in the U.S.

Those of you living in countries that have strict gun control also have real social safety nets and universal health care.
You don't have the gaping wealth inequity that exists in the U.S.
Or the Second Amendment,
Or the 'frontier' mentality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(22-12-2012 08:01 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: Do you really think the average citizen will be able to withstand a professional army, with modern destructive capabilities, that can already obliterate the country's primary federal defenses?

Yes.

It's not just about the person. They are integrated into part of a machination tasked with going to war. It's like asking if the average soldier could withstand a modern professional army by himself.

I also need not remind you that our military is staffed by average Americans who couldn't even make their beds on a regular basis. A few weeks training from a hard nosed smokey bear wearin drill instructor can shape them into an Army. Same with a real militia. It works for Switzerland.....

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."